JUDGMENT:

This Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2016 in A.S.No.3 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Gadwal, wherein and where under the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2014 in O.S.No.203 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gadwal was confirmed.

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in the suit. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of the present second appeal are that the plaintiff is owner and possessor of the suit schedule land to an extent of Ac.3-00 gts in survey No.364; that the defendants asked the plaintiff to sell or lease out his land and the same was refused by the plaintiff. While so, on 15.12.2010, the defendants, without any right, title and possession over the suit schedule property, highhandedly tried to occupy the suit schedule property however, the plaintiff averted the acts of the defendants with great difficulty. It is contended that the defendants are very powerful persons and having political backup. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule land.

4. The defendants have filed written statement denying the averments made by plaintiff inter alia contending that defendant No.1 got Ac.1.08 gts of land in suit survey No.364 from his ancestors and the Mandal Revenue Officer recognized the same and issued pattadar pass book and title deed book in his favour towards the said land; that so far as defendant No.2 is concerned, one Sanjigadu was the owner of the land to an extent of Acs.6-21 gts in suit survey No.364 and there was a family settlement between defendant No.2 and the legal representatives of Sanjigadu namely Santhoshamma and Sham Sone, wherein defendant No.2 was given Acs.3.06 gts in suit survey No.364; that the title of defendant No.2 has been recognized by the Revenue Department and pattadar pass book and title deed book were issued in his favour. It is contended that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit schedule land and he has never been in possession and that the plaintiff is not legal heir of the deceased Sanjigadu. Further, the plaintiff colluded with the revenue authorities and created the documents for filing of the suit for wrongful gain. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. Before the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, PW.1 and PW.2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DW1 to DW3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B17 were marked.

6. The trial Court, after considering the entire material available on record, vide its judgment and decree dated

31.12.2014 dismissed the suit by observing as under:

(i) First of all the oral and documentary adduced by the plaintiff is concerned, plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 behind examined P.W.2 another witness on his behalf. It is contention of P.W.1 that he is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule land and that defendants no have concerned suit schedule land, that they demanded him to sell his land or to lease out to them, their proposal not accepted and keeping the bore grudge they are trying to interfere into the suit schedule land. It is further stated that he has not filed any document before the court to show that this property in the name of his father. Admittedly, he has not filed ROR how he acquired the suit schedule property. He denied suggestion that Ex.A1 to A5 were created documents.

(ii) PW.2 admitted that the suit schedule land having total Acs.15.18 guntas in Sy.No.364, he further stated that the plaintiff acquired the suit schedule property from their forefathers name Sanjigadu, to that effect plaintiff did not file into the court that he acquired the suit schedule property from his forefather and plea taken by the plaintiff that he acquired property from his grandfather he did not file the document pertaining to their grandfather or ROR and except th